By Lindsay Bass-Patel.

Since 2019, Harris County, Texas, the third largest urban jurisdiction in the United States, has eliminated a required cash bail schedule for misdemeanors, as a result of the ODonnell v. Harris County settlement. Instead, most people arrested for misdemeanors are now entitled to be released promptly without a hearing. People charged with misdemeanors that potentially present public safety risks (e.g., repeat DWIs, family violence, prior bond violations or outstanding warrants) are not automatically released, but they receive a bail hearing, where they are represented by a public defender. This report analyzes how the system has changed after these misdemeanor-focused changes were enacted, including public safety outcomes; shares accounts of people experiencing the system since these changes; and examines how these changes can guide other jurisdictions. Looking at the period before the new bail policies (2015-2019) and the period since the institution of the new bail policies (2019-2024),

Durham, NC: The Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law, 2025. 31p.

By Kristen M. Budd, Rachel Didner-Jollie

Only two U.S. states – Maine and Vermont – do not disrupt the voting rights of their citizens who are completing a felony-level prison sentence.1 Incarcerated Mainers and Vermonters retain their right to cast absentee ballots in elections. Because of the states’ unique place in the voting rights landscape, The Sentencing Project examined how their Departments of Corrections facilitate voting. We sought to determine experiences and lessons to share nationally as momentum builds in states, such as Illinois, Maryland, and Oregon, to expand voting rights to people completing a felony-level sentence in prison or jail.2

Voting is one prosocial way to maintain a connection to the community, which is particularly important during incarceration, and it helps to build a positive identity as a community member.3 The right to vote is also an internationally recognized human right.4 While voting is a cornerstone of American democracy, an estimated 1 million citizens cannot vote because they are completing a felony-level sentence in prison.5 Given racial disparities in incarceration, people of color are disproportionately blocked from the ballot box due to voting bans for people with a felony-level conviction.6

This first-of-its-kind research is a culmination of a multi-year inquiry in Maine and Vermont about how voting rights are implemented in prisons. The Sentencing Project sought to answer two interrelated questions:

What are incarcerated residents’ views about voting and the voting process?

What are the facilitators and barriers to implementing voting rights within the Department of Corrections, according to Department of Corrections staff and other stakeholders?7

Past research has found low voter turnout among people incarcerated in these states, despite incarcerated residents retaining their voting rights while completing a felony-level sentence.8 This suggests that, in practice, the absentee ballot voting process may be more complex in correctional settings.9

Our findings are based on 21 interviews with staff from the Maine and Vermont Departments of Corrections and other stakeholders who collaborated with these agencies in voting rights work, as well as our survey of incarcerated Mainers and Vermonters in which 132 incarcerated people participated. This investigation revealed:

Nearly three quarters (73%) of incarcerated survey respondents said that voting during incarceration is important to them.

Almost half (49%) of incarcerated respondents said that they did not know how to vote at their facility.

Facilitators that supported voting within the Departments of Corrections included:

Involvement of the Secretary of State’s Office, non-profit groups, and individual volunteers.

Cooperation from the Departments of Corrections’ administration and staff.

Coordination of in-person voter registration drives to assist incarcerated residents with the voter registration process.

Barriers that hindered voting within the Departments of Corrections included:

Incarcerated residents’ lack of knowledge about their voting rights and how to navigate the multiple-step process to vote absentee.

Limited information about candidates to inform voters and a lack of guidance on voting dates and deadlines.

A lack of staff training on incarcerated residents’ voting rights and how to assist incarcerated residents with voting.

Additional logistical challenges included:

Limited access to the paperwork needed to vote (e.g., registration forms, ballot requests).

Delays caused by prison mail and mail external to the facility.

A lack of person-power or capacity by corrections staff and other stakeholders to conduct voting rights work across all facilities.

Based on these findings, The Sentencing Project recommends providing more equitable access to voting and democracy during imprisonment by:

Establishing on-site polling locations in all correctional facilities that have eligible voters.

Expanding education for incarcerated residents about their voting rights and how to vote using an absentee ballot method.

Training corrections staff on incarcerated residents’ voting rights and on the process of assisting residents who are voting from prison.

Increasing access to candidates and candidate information, including hosting candidate forums within the prison.

Permitting and providing access to official government websites as additional avenues to register to vote, request ballots, track ballots, and learn about state and local ballot initiatives.

Such a vision for voting in prisons is attainable. A movement is already underway to increase access to the ballot in jails.10 Due to the fluidity of jail populations – where an average stay is 32 days – coordinating voting efforts in jails can be even more complex.11 Yet, even with such hurdles, turnout in jails with on-site polling locations has surpassed citywide turnout rates in places like Cook County, Illinois and Washington, DC.12 The successful implementation of jail-based voting demonstrates that prison-based voting is possible. Every eligible American citizen should be able to cast a ballot in elections regardless of conviction or incarceration status. In the words of one incarcerated resident in Maine, “I believe strongly [that] voting is a fundamental right for every American citizen. Being incarcerated does not mean you forfeit that right so I voted in here and will most definitely vote out of here.”

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2025. 36p.

By The U.S. Department of Justice, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

The purpose of this memorandum is to advise the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) of the Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) concerns regarding the BOP’s policies and practices pertaining to the use of restraints on inmates. The OIG identified these concerns in connection with our investigators’ reviews of allegations by multiple BOP inmates at multiple BOP institutions that they were placed in restraints while confined to a bed or chair for extended periods and were assaulted or otherwise mistreated while in restraints. Some of these inmates were placed in fourpoint restraints, which are restraints using four points of contact—both wrists and both ankles—to confine an inmate to a bed, and others were placed in restraints on both wrists and ankles while confined to a chair. Some inmates reportedly suffered long-term injuries after prolonged placement in restraints. For example, one inmate suffered injury requiring the amputation of part of the inmate’s limb after being kept in restraints for over 2 days. We found that shortcomings in BOP’s policies and practices contributed to the concerns we identified and limited the availability of evidence that could either corroborate or refute inmates’ accounts of what happened while they were in restraints, thereby impairing the OIG’s ability to investigate allegations of misconduct by BOP employees. Specifically, we identified the following shortcomings: Lack of clarity in BOP policy as to the meaning of four-point restraints and lack of clear guidance regarding restraint, medical, and psychology checks of inmates in restraints that are not considered four-point restraints; Policies and practices that allow inmates to be kept in restraints for prolonged periods, sometimes leading to long-term injuries, and that require only limited oversight by BOP regional offices while inmates are in restraints; Inadequate guidelines to memorialize what occurred during restraint checks, including the absence of a requirement that BOP staff video and audio record restraint checks; and Inadequate guidelines to document medical checks of inmates in restraints. Clearer and more robust policies would assist the BOP in protecting inmates from abusive treatment, shielding staff from false allegations, deterring misconduct by staff, and holding staff who engage in misconduct accountable. Since the OIG reviewed the allegations that formed the basis of this memorandum, the BOP has made updates to its policies regarding the use of force and application of restraints, including new training guidelines for confrontation avoidance and de-escalation tactics. While these updates are an improvement to the BOP’s policies, additional policy revisions are needed to address the OIG’s concerns. In this memorandum, the OIG makes six recommendations to address the concerns we identified. Separately, the OIG is continuing to conduct an audit related more broadly to the BOP’s oversight of its use of restraints.

Washington, DC: The U.S. Department of Justice, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL2025. 22p.

By The Correctional Association of New York (CANY)

The Correctional Association of New York (CANY) has released a report on Washington Correctional Facility, a medium-security prison for men located in Washington County, NY. The report details findings from interviews with incarcerated individuals, analysis of administrative data, meetings with staff, and observations made by CANY during a monitoring visit in March 2024.Key findings include:

73% of incarcerated individuals interviewed reporting witnessing or experiencing verbal, physical, or sexual abuse.

The facility had a 21% vacancy rate in January 2024, which resulted in high rates of mandatory overtime and reduced operations, such as limited access to recreation for incarcerated individuals.

Grievance filing rates were lower than other medium-security prisons. No individuals interviewed reported that they felt the grievance process was fair.

Many incarcerated people reported positive experiences with vocational (e.g., welding, custodial maintenance) and academic programs. The facility administration expressed concern about low rates of attendance.

New York: Correctional Association of New York, 2025. 66p

By Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD

Effective workplace supports can help to address the high social and economic costs of intimate partner violence (IPV) to individuals, businesses and societies. This paper highlights steps that employers and governments are taking to strengthen workplace approaches to IPV, particularly public policy measures across OECD countries to encourage an effective workplace response. Firms are taking action by developing workplace policies on IPV and establishing accompanying processes, building organisational capacity to respond to violence by upskilling staff, connecting workers with support, and offering flexible working arrangements to enable victim-survivors to continue working. Governments, too, are stepping up: several now offer employment protection for people subjected to IPV, a right to request flexible working arrangements, guidance for employers in developing workplace supports, and – in limited cases – paid domestic violence leave entitlements for employees.

OECD Employment Policy Papers, No. 13,

Paris: OECD Publishing, 2025. 49p.

By Sylvia Walby

Rape matters. It destroys lives, as its traumatizing effects can linger long after the immediate pain and suffering. It is a form of gender inequality, an injury to health, a crime, a violation of women’s human rights and is costly to economy and society. Rape is one of the most serious forms of violence. It is the unwanted penetration of the body; with variations in definitions that concern whether absence of consent or use or threat of use of force is central, the object doing the penetration, and the orifice of the body being penetrated. The UN has a recommended definition for legislation, but there are currently some variations in the definition used in different legal regimes. There are further variations in the meaning in social science research and in popular understandings. There are many ingenious ways to address rape, to prevent it, to support victims. These practices are under development, constantly being tested and improved. This report is an overview of the worldwide best practices for rape prevention and for assisting women victims of rape. It is based on a review of the international literature on developments, together with a series of case studies of best practices.

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES, 2013, 214p.

Edited by Andrea Krizsán

Domestic violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence, is a policy ield where spectacular progress took place worldwide in the last decades. Importantly the issue was put on the policy agenda across diferent regions and countries almost invariably by women’s movements (Htun and Weldon 2012). Awareness of domestic violence as a policy issue which needs state intervention has also showed spectacular progress in the last decade or so in most countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Yet, considerable variety emerges in the achieved policy outputs and the extent to which these outputs are gender equality sensitive and serve the interests of women victims/survivors (Krizsan and Popa 2014). his volume asks how this variation can be connected to women’s movements in the region. Is women’s rights advocacy and autonomous women’s organizing an equally important component of progress in countries of this region?

Center for Policy Studies, 2015, 249p.

By Umphress, E., and Thomas, J. M. (Eds.)

The 2018 National Academies report Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommends the creation of institutional policies that can improve an institution's climate, culture, and reporting options while supporting those who have experienced sexual harassment.

This perspective paper addresses the 2018 report recommendations by exploring how a procedural justice framework could help guide improvements and revisions to policies, processes, and practices within higher education institutions with the potential to mitigate the negative experiences and outcomes of those affected by sexual harassment. Based on previous research, this paper applies a principles-based perspective to highlight ideals, rules, and standards that institutions can implement to achieve this goal.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26563. 2022. 33p.

By TERESA FRASCA et al.

Sexual harassment continues to be a persistent problem in institutions of higher education, despite the creation of new resources, policies, and programs aimed at combatting high rates on campuses (NASEM, 2018). Historically, these institutions have focused sexual harassment 1 prevention and response efforts on complying with the requirements of the law (NASEM, 2018). Specifically, institutions in the United States have focused on responding to formal reports of sexual harassment through complying with Title IX and Title VII2 —which prohibit discrimination against employees, students, staff, and/or faculty on the basis of sex—rather than identifying what harm has been caused by the sexual harassment, who has been harmed, and how that harm can be repaired. Even when institutions provide resources to repair the harm caused by sexual harassment, the harm might extend beyond the conclusions of the institutional response process and provision of the required remedial measures and sanctions (when applicable) (e.g., Grossi, 2017; Karp and Frank, 2016; McMahon et al., 2019; NASEM, 2018; Smith and Freyd, 2014). Put simply, there is a lack of attention to remediating (or repairing and limiting) the damage caused by sexual harassment across the timeline of the institutional response process (see Box 1 and Figure 1).

National Academies of Sciences. 2025. 76p.

By Katie Boyle, Diana Camps, Kirstie Ken English, Jo Edson Ferrie, Aidan Flegg, and Gaurav Mukherjee

Available open access digitally under CC-BY-NC-ND licence. This book addresses the significant violations of social rights in the UK, as well as the gaps in access to justice to remedy them. This is a unique contribution to our understanding of human rights from the perspective of access to justice with key insights for policy and practice.

2025, 253p.

By Amanda Y. Agan, Andrew Garin, Dmitri K. Koustas, Alexandre Mas, and Crystal Yang

All results in this paper using IRS data are drawn from the publicly available working paper “The Impact of Criminal Records on Employment, Earnings, and Tax Filing,” which is available on the IRS Statistics of Income Tax Stats website. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or the official positions of the U.S. Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service. All results have been reviewed to ensure that no confidential information is disclosed. Researchers Agan, Garin, and Koustas received funding for this research through the Clean Slate Initiative, a project of the New Venture Fund. We thank the San Joaquin Public Defender's Office and District Attorney's office for their help and tireless work in making this project possible. We also thank the numerous interns who worked in San Joaquin to help us gather data. Camilla Adams, Kaan Cankat, Sarah Frick, Jared Grogan, Bailey Palmer, and Kalie Pierce provided instrumental research assistance. We also thank Emma Rackstraw and J-PAL NA for the initial conversations that allowed this project to happen. The RCT in this paper was registered in the AEA RCT Registry, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0004414. IRB approvals were obtained where necessary.

WORKING PAPER · NO. 2023-133

Chicago: University of Chicago, The Becker Friedman Institute for Economics, 2023. 53p.